FGRO vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FGRO (Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FGRO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FGRO returned 12.69%/yr vs 15.89%/yr for FBCG. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

FGRO vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF (FGRO) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGRO achieves a 17.03% return, which is significantly higher than FBCG's 15.85% return.

FGRO

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: 6.72%
• YTD: 17.03%
• 6M: 16.08%
• 1Y: 38.91%
• 3Y*: 29.35%
• 5Y*: 12.69%
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 6.79%
• YTD: 15.85%
• 6M: 15.22%
• 1Y: 38.56%
• 3Y*: 30.88%
• 5Y*: 15.89%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FGRO vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FGRO Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF	17.03%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	1.72%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.85%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	12.18%

Correlation

The correlation between FGRO and FBCG is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.97

The correlation between FGRO and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

FGRO vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FGRO	FBCG
Technology	47.1%	48.3%
Communication Services	18.4%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	17.2%
Healthcare	7.9%	6.7%
Industrials	5.7%	5.7%
Financial Services	4.8%	2.2%
Basic Materials	1.5%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	1.3%
Real Estate	0.7%	0.7%
Utilities	0.5%	0.5%
Energy	0.2%	0.4%

Return for Risk

FGRO vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 59
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 57

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FGRO vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF (FGRO) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	FGRO	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	2.09	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	2.79	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.36	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.75	2.55	+0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.74	9.93	+0.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FGRO vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGRO Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGRO and FBCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FGRO	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.14	2.09	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	0.62	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.44	0.83	-0.39

Drawdowns

FGRO vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGRO drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, roughly equal to the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGRO and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGRO	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-43.56%	-0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-15.17%	+0.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-27.89%	+1.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-43.56%	-0.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	-0.83%	+0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.26%	-11.48%	-2.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.63%	3.90%	-0.27%

Volatility

FGRO vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF (FGRO) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) have volatilities of 4.54% and 4.71%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGRO	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.54%	4.71%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.11%	13.89%	+0.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.28%	18.53%	-0.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.33%	25.78%	-0.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.38%	25.72%	-0.34%

FGRO vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FGRO and FBCG have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

FGRO vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FGRO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
FGRO Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.09%	0.00%	1.50%	0.55%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGRO and FBCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FGRO and FBCG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FGRO or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to FGRO (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGRO dropped -44.52% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FGRO or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 15.89% vs 12.69% for FGRO. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, FGRO has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGRO or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 15.89% return vs 12.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGRO or FBCG?

FGRO and FBCG have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FGRO or FBCG?

FGRO has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FGRO and FBCG?

FGRO is categorized as Global Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 2.09), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.